"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
Richard wrote:

Indeed, and it is uncorrectable if it's a differential phase errro,
which
is why NTSC is so crap.


snip

The NTSC system of that day DID require that the equipment with its
myriads of overheated vacuum bottles (and no feedback!) be kept
in tune ACTIVELY ... meaning that somebody had to check it. That was
the only actual problem ... PAL would have allowed sloppiness
to be covered up.

No PAL was designed so that such active adjustment was not required.


But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer
technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ...
maybe
and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply
adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM,
which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than
actual RGB).
is this chauvinism or arogance?

true the Europeans threw away their ten year lead by having a silly war, but
the first scheduled broadcast TV started on 1st October 1936 in London using
the Marconi electronic system - still the basis of all analogue broadcasts
today.


Doug McDonald

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer
technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ...
and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply
adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM,
which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than
actual RGB).
Eh !
ALL monochrome compatible colour TV systems use split luma-chroma with the
chroma carried by a sub-carrier system.
Monochrome compatibility was the cornerstone of NTSC, PAL and SECAM so black
and white TV owners were not denied a TV service. Frame sequential RGB
systems were not deemed to be compatible or practicable for that matter.
Mike Davison.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:


The NTSC system of that day DID require that the equipment with its
myriads of overheated vacuum bottles (and no feedback!) be kept
in tune ACTIVELY ... meaning that somebody had to check it. That was
the only actual problem ... PAL would have allowed sloppiness
to be covered up.


No PAL was designed so that such active adjustment was not required.

Incorrect!!

PAL, as a 1950's thing, if it were actually to have been
deployed, would have had the same technical problems
as NTSC, and would have required MORE tweeking to keep
working CORRECTLY. What it was designe to do was COVER UP
mistakes ... and in doing so, it lost saturation.


But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer
technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ...

maybe

and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply
adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM,
which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than
actual RGB).

is this chauvinism or arogance?

true the Europeans threw away their ten year lead by having a silly war, but
the first scheduled broadcast TV started on 1st October 1936 in London using
the Marconi electronic system - still the basis of all analogue broadcasts
today.


Uh ... perhaps you might take reading comprehension lessons?
I said COLOR TV.

In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
in Europe and the US. After WWII, of course, the US simply
annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV. Until Europe
got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to
watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE
TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks
and one independant station.

And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV,
for example.

Doug McDonald

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:12:02 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote:

After WWII, of course, the US simply
annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV. Until Europe
got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to
watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE
TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks
and one independant station.

So what? It's not quantity but quality. But that is something you
Americans will never understand, even if you lived to be 1000.

And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV,
for example.

Our content is much better than yours, but alas it is rapidly heading
towards the same dreadful standards that you enjoy. 5000 channels of
crap. Great, just what I need.

In article writes:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:12:02 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote:

After WWII, of course, the US simply
annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV. Until Europe
got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to
watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE
TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks
and one independant station.

So what? It's not quantity but quality. But that is something you
Americans will never understand, even if you lived to be 1000.

Indeed, quality counts. That is why we prefer NTSC, which is a better system
once the base technology is able to deal with its needs.

Indeed, quality counts. With motion (and that is what Television is about,
after all), the quality of NTSC is clearly better, and the U.S. HD standards
are even better.


And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV,
for example.

Our content is much better than yours, but alas it is rapidly heading
towards the same dreadful standards that you enjoy. 5000 channels of
crap. Great, just what I need.

Indeed. Four years ago in the U.K., I had the amusement of watching
an old episode of Quincy M.E. -- a U.S. program.

Hollywood squares with children in the squares. Wheel of Fortune with
a set that looked put together on a $100 budget.

Didn't look like quality, nor did it look original. But it was fun
to watch.


Alan

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:



true the Europeans threw away their ten year lead

in television

by having a silly war, but the first scheduled broadcast TV started on
1st October 1936 in London using the Marconi electronic system - still
the basis of all analogue broadcasts today.


Uh ... perhaps you might take reading comprehension lessons?
I said COLOR TV.

In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
in Europe and the US.

Just first in the UK.

After WWII, of course, the US simply
annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV.

Overhauled for the reason stated above - that's one of the reasons why the
USA had colour first.

Until Europe
got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to
watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE
TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks
and one independant station.

That was a political and economic problem rather than a technical issue.

South Africa didn't get TV until 1976.


And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV,
for example.

really.


Doug McDonald

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:


After WWII, of course, the US simply
annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV. Until Europe
got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to
watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE
TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks
and one independant station.


So what? It's not quantity but quality. But that is something you
Americans will never understand, even if you lived to be 1000.



A typical European answer. The European idea that only the
elites (and only Europeans can be that, of course) can tell
the lowly proles what they should enjoy. Now I, personally,
DO hold that elites do exist ... though I hold that Europe
holds no special corner on the market of them ... and that
governments should provides incentives and sometimes
even subsidies to keep quality available. Sometimes
even standards are needed (i.e. technical quality). HOWEVER, I also
hold that for most of the people most of the time for
most of the spectrum space, "vox populi, vox dei".

I am not aware of what you Europeans mean by "quality"
about regular OTA TV. We in America have a cable and
satellite channel called BBC America that plays BBC
aired entertainment programs (as opposed to things like
BBC nature programs that air on other cable channels).
And the programming is simply dreadfully awful. It is
not what I call "quality".





And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV,
for example.


Our content is much better than yours, but alas it is rapidly heading
towards the same dreadful standards that you enjoy. 5000 channels of
crap. Great, just what I need.

Could you kindly explain what is "quality" in entertainment
programming?

Doug McDonald

R. Mark Clayton wrote:


In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
in Europe and the US.


Just first in the UK.

Huh?

I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
actually get the electronic part done right before
the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
about puttering around with whirling disks.


Doug McDonald

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:


In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
in Europe and the US.


Just first in the UK.

Huh?

I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
actually get the electronic part done right before
the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
about puttering around with whirling disks.


I read somewhere that because EMI and the RCA at that time were financially
linked, there was a was a reasonable degree of co-operation and exchanges of
ideas between the two teams.


Doug McDonald

In article , Doug McDonald wrote:

In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
in Europe and the US.


Just first in the UK.

Huh?

I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
actually get the electronic part done right before
the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
about puttering around with whirling disks.

Just to set the record straight, a broadcast service was started on 2
November 1936 on two standards that at the time were considered "high
definition" (and they were, compared with what had gone before), a
mechanical one with 240 lines 25 frames per second using intermediate
film, and an all-electronic one using 405 lines 25 frames per second
with 2:1 interlace, giving 50Hz flicker which was much less visible
than the mechanical system. By Februiary 1937 it had been decided to
abandon the mechanical system, so the electronic one remained
permanent, apart from the interruption of the war. Baird had
demonstrated the feasibility of television with a working demonstration
of a mechanical 30-line system in 1926.

Details of techniques have changed since then, but the fundamental
principles of the generation of a television signal are the same today
as in the 405 line system started in 1936.

Rod.